Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/573

Prem Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:29.8.2014

Complaint Case. No.573/14                                           Date of order:25.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. PremPrakashVashisht S/o Lt. Pt. Jot Ram R/o C-2/59 West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.                                                                                Complainant

VERSUS

1.        M/s. Mehar Communications, DE-101 Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        M/s. Samsung India Electronica Private Limited, A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Suites, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            ShriPremPrakashVashisht named above here in the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section12 of the Consumer ProtectionAct against M/s.  Mehar Communications  and another here in after in short referred as the opposite parties briefly stating that the complainant on 30.08.13 purchased a mobile handset  make “Samsung Galaxy Grand Duos” from M/s. J. Prasad and Company Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the opposite party no.2 for sum of Rs.20,500/-. The mobile handset started giving problem of wifi and Bluetooth since June, 2014.  On 26.07.14 ShriArpitBhalla son-in-law of the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2 for repair of the mobile handset. The mobile handset was opened and checked by ShriJitenderChilwal engineer of the opposite party no.1. Who promised to return the mobile after 7 days after repairs. The mobile handset did not work properly and gave same problem. Therefore, on 07.08.14 was again delivered to the opposite part no.1 for repair. Who asked for repair charges of Rs.6,300/- on the ground of damage of the mobile handset due to water logging. The mobile handset was with in warranty at the time of delivery for repair,  therefore, the complainant refused to pay repair charges. Since then the mobile handset is with the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset. The complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially and is deprived of the mobile handset. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to repair the mobile handset or refund price of the mobile handset and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical exertion and loss of business and practice.

            Notices of the complaint  was sent to the opposite parties. But despite services the opposite party no.1 did not appear. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 was proceeded exparte.

The opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply while admitting delivery of the mobile to the opposite party no.1 on 28.07.14 i.e. three days before expiry of warranty of the mobile handset. But asserted that warranty of the mobile handset had become void due to water logging in the handset. Therefore the opposite party no.1 rightly claimed Rs.6,300/- as repair charges. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed replication to the reply of the opposite party no.2 while controverting stand of the opposite party no.2 and reiterating his stand. He once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to repair the mobile handset or refund price of the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical exertion and loss of business and practice.

            When ShriPremPrakash complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant also relied upon  invoice no.JP/RHN/AUG/2013-14/R1-0111 dated 30.08.13 and job sheet dated 28.07.14.

            When the opposite party no.2 was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, they filed affidavit of ShriNivasanJayant Joshi narrating facts of the reply. The opposite party no.2 failed to file even  a single document.

            The parties have also submitted written arguments in support of their respective claim.

            The opposite party no.2 was also proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.03.16.

            We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly.

            The complainant from the affidavit,invoice no.JP/RHN/AUG/2013-14/R1-0111 dated 30.08.13, job sheet dated 28.07.14    and admission of the opposite party no.2 succeed to prove that he on 30.08.14 purchased a mobile handset make “Samsung Galaxy Grand Duos” IMEI no.RZ1D738BT7N(355886051604257)from M/s. J. Prasad and Company Pvt. Ltd. manufactured by the opposite party no.2 for sum of Rs.20,500/-. The mobile handset developed fault and was delivered to the opposite party no.1 on 28.07.14 and 07.08.14 for repairs. The opposite party no.1 neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset.

The case of the opposite party no.2  is that the warranty of the mobile handset had become void due to water logging. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable to repair the mobile handset without repair charges. But there is no document on record on behalf of the opposite party to prove that the warranty of the mobile handset had become void due to water logging. Whereas a perusal of the job sheet dated 28.07.14 shows that when the mobile handset was delivered to the opposite party no.1 for repairs, there was no water logging and the mobile handset  was within warranty. The opposite parties failed to repair and returned the mobile handset hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.20,500/- cost of mobile handset with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till actual realization of the amount and pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- on account of mental, physical and financial agony and loss of use of the mobile and litigation expenses. The opposite party no.1 being authorized service centre and the opposite party no.2  being manufacturer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 

 

Order pronounced on :25.5.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT